<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">Cheryl has asked that we consider an be prepared to discuss Slides 12, 13, and 14 in the attachment in our October 12 call – three Straw Proposals re new registry services in applications.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">Regarding the three Straw Proposals as to whether or not a registry operator needs to describe new services in its application, one item we have not fully considered is that the GAC is still
likely to have input at the application stage. If the GAC has input, I don’t think we want to foreclose the GNSO or other policy (e.g. ALAC) input to the Board. There is also the Objection process to be considered and new registry services could be relevant
to evaluating an Objection. (This is also why the Answer to Question 18 – purpose of the TLD is relevant.)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">One risk we face in Straw Proposals 1 and 3 (by not requiring new services to be listed in an application) is that the Community (including the GAC) may want more involvement in the RSEP
process. For example, if no disclosure of new services is required in the application, should a public comment period for new services proposed via RSEP be mandatory? (This is a transparency issue.)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">The RSEP process is detailed at the link below. It says that the new service may or may not call for public comment if it “sets new precedent or has substantial effect on ICANN, third parties,
or the DNS.” So at present ICANN org determines this I guess. To my mind there is a question whether a change in the application process that does not require a description of new services would necessarily implicate a reexamination of the RSEP process
detailed here:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/workflow-2012-02-25-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/workflow-2012-02-25-en</a><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">There is a comparison statement on Slide 15 which points out that Straw Proposal 2 requires all services to be described in the application. However, the second part of Straw Proposal 2,
establishment of a “fast-track” for pre-approved services definitely contemplated that pre-approved services can be named and that would certainly allow for a friendly amendment to Straw Proposal 2 to state that all new services should be detailed but that
pre-approved services can just be listed.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">So it seems that #1 and # 3 don’t require any listing of pre-approved services or new services. This would leave any new services to the RSEP process and leave pre-approved services undisclosed
in the application. But the RSEP process doesn’t require public comment if ICANN org determines that is not needed.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">Straw Proposal # 2 requires listing of new services and assessment of any security/stability concerns, but could either specify (a) no listing of pre-approved services or a (b) simple listing
of said pre-approved services (to be determined) without a lot of detail. <o:p>
</o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#AF272F">Anne E. Aikman-Scalese</span></b><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Of Counsel</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">520.629.4428 office</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">520.879.4725 fax</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_new" title="Email User"><span style="color:#323232">AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a></span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">_____________________________</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><img border="0" width="115" height="46" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D341D4.67202B30" alt="cid:image001.png@01D341D4.67202B30"></span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">One South Church Avenue, Suite 700</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a href="http://lrrc.com/" target="_new" title="Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie Webpage"><span style="color:#323232">lrrc.com</span></a></span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Julie Hedlund<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 05, 2017 3:05 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Dear Work Track members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording
or transcript.</i> See the chat transcript and recording at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB">https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> </span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.5pt">1. Name Collisions:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Source data from GDD Technical Services, that acts as the basis for the information being presented by Rubens, is available on the Name Collisions Wiki page here:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/Yz2AAw">https://community.icann.org/x/Yz2AAw</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Slide 5: What's in today's agenda and what's still ahead:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- Results from GDD inquiry on reported collisions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- Whether 2012-round gTLD should keep readiness after 2 years of delegation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- Whether SubPro gTLDs should have readiness or not, and length of such readiness.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Slide 6: Report collisions from 2012-round:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- No life-threatening collisions;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- 18 unique TLDs represented in 34 occurences<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- Median of 3 occurences per TLD<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- Median of 22 days between delegation and report<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- 23 cases reported as service disruption, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Slide 7: Reported collisions from 2012-round (cont.):<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- In 24 cases the registry was not contacted -- determined by ICANN Org that it was not necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- In 5 the registry was put in contact with the reporter, in 1 registry stopped controlled interruption, in 1 no action.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- Few data on outcomes -- all 5 known outcomes the network was updated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Slide 8: Two-year readiness for current new gTLDs:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">All 2012-round gTLDs were required to pass a controlled interruption period and be able to respond within two hours for life-threatening reports for first 2 years of delegation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Options:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">a) 2012-gTLDs should extend readiness beyond the 2-year period<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">b) 2012-gTLDs should only have such readiness in those 2 years as currently foreseen in the framework<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">b) 1 year<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Poll:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Option a: No one.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Option b: 6 in favor<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Option c: 1 in favor<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Sarah L Verisign: Rubens can we get back to you on this later this week rather than saying now?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): Sarah this is a temp taking not deffinative pol<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Jon Nevett: we should do a cost differential before voting<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Sarah L Verisign: I understand but I need to discuss this with other folks before making even a temp position<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Jon Nevett: what is the cost of the readiness -- if not a lot, not big deal<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Jon Nevett: if it is a lot, then it gets passed on<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Alan Greenberg: Cost is lower for orgs that have multiple TLDs, since cost of readiness for 10 is no larger than 1 and TLDs come on line at different times.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan that every new gTLD is different. Initial evaluations on name collision risk could make a big difference here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): thus my 'personal' comfort with the status quo on this at 2y<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Alan Greenberg: My intervention was really in relation to THIS question, not just the 2012 gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Slide 9: Framework -- Two-year readiness for SubPro gTLDs:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Question: Should gTLDs in subsequent procedures be subject for such 2-year readiness for life-threatening collisions?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Options:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">a) Same 2-hour for life-threatening collisions readiness for first -- years. (Assume keeping 2 years.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">b) No need for readiness.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">c) SubPro gTLDs should have readiness covering more conditions with -- hours/days SLA<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Poll:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Option a: 4 in favor<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Option b: 1 in favor; 3 against<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Option c: None<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- Should there be different responses for different types of TLDs?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Dietmar Lenden - Valideus: 2 years would appear fair for all applicants past and present<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.5pt">2. Registry Services:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">ACTION: Send slides 12-16 to the list and ask the list to consider and discuss on the list the three straw-persons, contrasts, and slide 16. Take up this conversation at this point in the agenda next week.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Slide 12: Straw-person #1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Slide 13: Straw-person #2<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Slide 14: Straw-person #3<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Discussion on Straw-person #1:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- Change in SP#1: When registry services are proposed that is when the community has the opportunity to comment and provide input. You don't know the impact that the services may have. Don't want to discourge
proposals for new services.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- On the registry services policy -- they don't have to get input from the community except when ICANN makes a finding that a concern has to be evaluated. Then the community comments on that concern via
the report of the RSEP panel. We can go beyond that for new gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- With respect to input on new gTLD applications, the community doesn't have a formal process but many of us review the applications. There are informal methods and if there is an irregularity there are
ways in ICANN to raise an issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">-- If an applicant knows that if an applicant specifies a registry service and that it will go through more evaluation, that is a disincentive to provide that registry service early on. Then after signing
the contract they will file an RSEP.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>